Academic freedom, or “the freedom of a teacher or researcher in higher education to investigate and discuss the issues in his or her academic field, and to teach and publish findings without the interference from the administrators, boards of trustees, political figures, donors, or other entities” (AAUP, n.d.), is critical to the goals of higher education. Academic freedom is foundational for advancing critical inquiry and engagement with complex (and at times, controversial) topics. Although certainly not a new phenomenon in higher education (Schrecker, Reference Schrecker2023), the current political landscape reflects an organized threat to academic freedom.
In 2025, the federal government has taken several actions, primarily in the form of executive orders (e.g., Exec. Order No. 14173), canceling grants and contracts (U.S. Department of Education, 2025), and threatening accreditation (Exec. Order No. 14279) that have disrupted higher education. We suggest this is the culmination of an ongoing effort at the state level to exercise more control over higher education. In recent years, state governments, particularly those presided over by Republican legislatures and governors, have enacted legislation designed to place significant restrictions on higher education institutions. Although state governments have historically had oversight over public universities (see Cohen & Kisker, Reference Cohen and Kisker2009; Heller, Reference Heller2001), these recent efforts pose threats to academic freedom across several fronts (see Table 1 for a summary of recent state efforts).
Table 1. Summary of Recent State Legislation Concerning DEI and Academic Freedom
Note. HB = house bill; SB = senate bill; HF = house file; SF = senate file; EO = executive order. Ideological statements in the bills often refer to political loyalty tests, political ideology statements, ideological litmus tests, diversity statements, and so forth. Divisive concepts are explicitly banned in certain bills and definitions vary, but often include teaching that the U.S. is irredeemable, violent overthrow of the U.S. government, or that a particular race or sex is inherently oppressive, sexist, racist, guilty, immoral, inferior/superior, and so forth. 1 Prohibits mandatory or required diversity training. 2 Prohibits training on divisive concepts. 3 DEI positions and offices prohibited if they grant preferential treatment or promote divisive concepts. 4 If in violation of mandate on DEI office prohibition or mandatory diversity training prohibition. 5 If course is a mandatory course.
This brief examines state legislation over the past 5 years impacting higher education with a particular focus on Ohio Senate Bill 1 (SB1). Ohio SB1 is a sweeping higher education bill that highlights many of the features of other state legislative efforts (see Table 1). Recently signed by Governor DeWine, Ohio SB1 limits DEI and places restrictions on presentation of controversial topics, faculty tenure protections, and collective bargaining. In this brief, we first detail recent efforts of the Ohio Legislature to regulate higher education, particularly SB1. We then explain the details of the legislation, its relation to similar legislation, and present implications for I-O psychologists, particularly those in academia.
History and context of Senate Bill 1
On March 14, 2023, State Senator Jerry Cirino introduced SB83 entitled “Enact Ohio Higher Education Enhancement Act.” The legislation aimed to curtail mandatory DEI training efforts at public institutions and require universities to present all sides to controversial topics. SB83 was passed by the Ohio Senate (21–10) on May 17, 2023, and introduced to the House on May 22, 2023. The bill was sent back (i.e., re-referred) to the House on January 3, 2024, but ultimately died at the end of the legislative session.
The Ohio legislature was reconstituted with new leadership after the 2024 election, and on January 22, 2025, State Senator Jerry Cirino introduced SB1, “Advance Ohio Higher Education Act,” legislation modeled after the earlier bill though expanding coverage in other areas. Like SB83, SB1 included the anti-DEI prohibitions, but added prohibitions on striking, restrictions on tenure, and limits on collective bargaining. The bill passed the Ohio Senate (21–11) on February 12, 2025, and the Ohio House (59–34) on March 19, 2025. The bill was signed by Governor DeWine on March 28, 2025.
Threats to academic freedom
In 2024, PEN America filed a report detailing how state-level legislation has implemented tactics to disguise censorship by attaching it to popular goals (e.g., viewpoint diversity, intellectual diversity) and expanded their target to undermine systems that uphold academic freedom (e.g., tenure, shared governance). In line with this, we suggest that there are four major areas in which state legislatures have threatened academic freedom in state colleges and universities: limits on DEI, control over curriculum and classroom instruction, tenure protections, and collective bargaining.
Limits on DEI
Targeting DEI has been the major thrust of state legislation since 2020 (Chronicle of Higher Education, n.d.). The form it has taken, however, has changed, and we would argue that there has been an escalation over time in the scope of these bans thereby representing increasing government overreach on college campuses. As the most recent piece of legislation to pass, SB1 goes further than previous efforts in a few respects. First, SB1 is one of only three pieces of legislation we encountered that eliminates identity-based scholarships—Utah’s HB261 similarly removes identity consideration for scholarships, and Arkansas’s SB3 does not outright ban identity-based scholarships but removed language around minority teacher scholarships. Second, Ohio SB1 bans all diversity training programs (Sec. 3345.0217). This departs from previous legislation that bans required or mandatory DEI training or training that specifically deals with divisive concepts. SB1 places a blanket ban on DEI training while failing to define what qualifies as DEI training or defining DEI other than to cite it as a “controversial belief or policy.” Third, recent state legislation varies with respect to how it addresses DEI programs or offices on college campuses. For example, North Dakota SB2247, Indiana SB202, and Tennessee HB1376 and HB2670 specify that employees whose primary duties include DEI must also be tasked with strengthening intellectual diversity but fall short of banning all DEI programs. Texas HB1 defines DEI offices as those that have influence in hiring practices or promote differential treatment, conduct training, or promote policies that reference identity. Ohio SB1 places a blanket ban on DEI offices and specifies that the ban includes any offices renamed but serving the same or similar purposes, again without defining what may fall under this umbrella.
South Carolina provides another example of escalation of state laws attacking DEI. In 2023, South Carolina HB4289 would have prohibited diversity statements, mandatory DEI training, infringement on first amendment rights to free speech, and discrimination based on viewpoint. Although the bill passed in the House in 2024, it died in the Senate. More recently, however, South Carolina introduced HB3927,Footnote 1 which would additionally ban state agencies, city councils, and schools from contracting with any company that has a DEI program (Sec. 1-1-1920(B)). As opponents have pointed out, this would potentially end contracts with a range of existing companies, adversely impact South Carolina’s economy, and require the onerous task of checking every hotel, caterer, and so forth when booking conference travel or guest speakers (Holdman, Reference Holdman2025). Although the bill is in its early stages and has clear problems, it is a bold escalation of anti-DEI efforts.
Control over curriculum and classroom instruction
PEN America (2024) also argued that the nature of this censorship has shifted over time to be less explicit. For example, some of the earlier bills from 2021–2022 in Table 1 (Iowa HF802, Idaho HB377, Oklahoma HB1775, and Mississippi SB2113) explicitly prohibit including divisive concepts often associated with critical race theory in course instruction. Later bills do not explicitly ban these concepts in classroom instruction (i.e., they include exceptions for course instruction and research) but create enough ambiguity or threat of adverse action to create hesitation when dealing with concepts that could be perceived as controversial, divisive, or political.Footnote 2 Indeed, aspects of Ohio SB1 do not explicitly censor classroom instruction but create enough to create hesitation when dealing with concepts that could be perceived as controversial, divisive, or political. Ohio SB1 and similar state legislation that promote “viewpoint diversity” risk creating a chilling effect on classroom instruction, discouraging the discussion of topics that could be perceived as controversial or political, thus weakening the power of our classroom instruction.
Ohio SB1 attempts to ensure intellectual diversity by mandating that faculty and staff should “allow and encourage students to reach their own conclusions about all controversial beliefs or policies and shall not seek to indoctrinate any social, political, or religious point of view” (Sec. 3345.0217). Although Ohio SB1 specifies that institutions cannot prohibit or encourage faculty from publicly expressing opinions or views of a social policy (Sec. 3345.0217), there are several provisions that would inherently restrict expressing such opinions and views. For example, SB1 requires institutions to respond to complaints against faculty or others who interfere with their rights to intellectual diversity (Sec. 3345.0218). From our reading, reports regarding violations would be provided to the chancellor and the “chancellor shall post each such policy or report that the chancellor received on the chancellor’s publicly accessible web site” (Sec. 3345.0219). Notably, similar language was written into Tennessee’s HB1376 but was removed during Senate hearings possibly because having violations publicly listed could make faculty, administrators, and others targets of harassment. Student evaluations are also required to include the following question: “Does the faculty member create a classroom atmosphere free of political, racial, gender, and religious bias?” (Sec. 3345.451). The problem with such a question is that faculty (and people in general) have biases that may be difficult to completely conceal or could be inferred (correctly or incorrectly). The question is not whether faculty have biases, it is whether these biases manifest in unfair treatment.
As an extension of these controls, SB1 goes even further by requiring state institutions to eliminate degree programs if, on average over a 3-year period, they grant fewer than five degrees (Sec. 3345.454). Although there is a waiver that can be granted by the chancellor, this provision takes power away from universities to decide what degree programs are available to students and the chancellor may decide whether the program is eligible for instruction funds from the state.
Tenure protections
Another way state legislators have put limitations on academic freedom is by weakening institutions that protect faculty, namely, tenure and collective bargaining. Although there have been many efforts over the years to remove tenure, only a few bills have managed to limit tenure protections by imposing post tenure reviews (e.g., Arkansas HB1512/SB246; Florida HB999/SB266; Indiana SB202; Kentucky HB424; and Texas HB1/SB17). Ohio SB1 likewise implements a post tenure review or a formal review taking place outside an annual review that takes place post tenure. Notably, post tenure review policies are not new or even necessarily uncommon (Tiede, Reference Tiede2022). The nature of such reviews, however, varies quite widely. Ohio’s post tenure review is a “selective post tenure-review" that is instigated when the faculty member demonstrates “does not meet performance expectations” within a particular category of teaching, research, or service for 2 consecutive years. Worth noting, the AAUP warns that selective reviews may raise suspicions of age discrimination (Euben, Reference Euben2006). Arkansas already had a post tenure review in place but, with the passage of HB1512/SB246, can now remove tenure status depending on the outcome of that review. Similarly, Kentucky implements a “periodic post tenure-review" by requiring performance reviews every 4 years that may result in removal regardless of tenure status. Texas can revoke tenure of a faculty member who violates HB1/SB17’s ban on DEI offices and mandatory diversity training. Florida and Indiana require a post tenure review every 5 years with Indiana’s review process requiring that the faculty demonstrate that they foster a culture of intellectual diversity and avoid subjecting students to their opinions when outside their academic discipline. Although no states have succeeded thus far in fully eliminating tenure, efforts are still being made. Texas introduced HB1830 on March 14, 2025, that would ban tenure or any permanent employment status.
In a particularly extreme example, Indiana SB202 mandates that faculty tenure, promotion, and post tenure reviews rest upon whether the board of trustees determines that the faculty member is presenting viewpoint diversity and not subjecting students or mentees to ideological views or opinions that are unrelated to the faculty member’s field of study or assigned course. The wording of the bill also welcomes speculation, as the board can deny tenure or promotion to a faculty member who is “unlikely to foster a culture of free inquiry” [emphasis added] or “unlikely to expose students to scholarly works from a variety of political and ideological viewpoints” [emphasis added]. Although the board of trustees is prohibited from considering the faculty member’s research, public commentary, criticisms of institutional leadership, or political activity outside teaching and mentoring, the potential implications of this review pose a clear threat to academic freedom in both mentoring and classroom instruction. This bill is currently facing legal challenges from the Indiana ACLU over concerns that the policy infringes on faculty members’ academic freedom and freedom of speech (ACLU Indiana, Reference Indiana2024).
Collective bargaining
Ohio SB1 puts several limits on collective bargaining including placing limits on retrenchment and the ability to strike. With respect to retrenchment, SB1 gives this power to the board of trustees and eliminates the ability to bargain over retrenchment policies except for faculty with “at least thirty years, but not more than thirty-five years, of service in one of the state retirement systems at the time of any retrenchment determination” (Sec. 3345.456). Additionally, Ohio SB1 is the only similar piece of legislation we encountered that also banned faculty from striking, though many states impose more general bans for public-sector workers (Lieberman, Reference Lieberman2023; Sanes & Schmitt, Reference Sanes and Schmitt2014). The restrictions on faculty unionization seek to weaken labor unions. It is typical to restrict the right to strike for labor unions that are clearly tied to public safety. In Ohio, public employees who are police officers, psychiatric attendants, prison guards, and fire fighters are prohibited from striking. Rationale given for prohibiting strikes among faculty rely on student fairness, not public safety—legislators in favor of the bill argued that student graduation could be unfairly delayed due to faculty strikes.
Implications for I-O psychologists in higher education
There are many implications for I-O psychologists in Ohio and in other states with similar legislation. To begin, it is important to note that academic freedom is not considered absolute or without certain duties. The AAUP (1940) notes that care should be taken when introducing controversial matters that are unrelated to the subject. Additionally, when making statements to the public, faculty have a duty to their profession to be accurate, exercise appropriate restraint, and show respect for the opinions of others. In practice this means that I-O academics should approach their scholarship, teaching, and public engagement (including social media) with a careful balance of intellectual rigor, professional ethics, and a respect for those with differing opinions.Footnote 3
Second, the current battle over the role of DEI initiatives in higher education highlights two competing perspectives, with both sides claiming that the opposition is curtailing academic freedom. Those seeking to dismantle DEI claim that such initiatives impose ideological conformity and threaten equal opportunity through preferential treatment. Conversely, defenders of DEI assert that efforts to ban or severely restrict DEI initiatives is a form of government overreach and a threat to equal opportunity. This side argues that DEI programs are critical for ensuring equitable access to higher education, creating an inclusive learning environment, and supporting intellectual diversity by creating room for historically marginalized voices. This underscores a deeper philosophical difference about the purpose of higher education, how to achieve equal opportunity, and the role of government in shaping university policies. From our perspective as I-O psychologists, we frequently deal with controversial topics including workplace discrimination, adverse impact, affirmative action, diversity management, and sexual harassment. Even if we take the Ohio legislature at their word and assume that they are attempting to promote intellectual diversity, we are concerned that the vague language in Ohio SB1 and other similar bills will ultimately undermine intellectual diversity in classrooms by creating a chilling effect. Further, eliminating DEI training, offices, and scholarships could have an impact on graduate student admissions and pipeline diversity, inclusion, and retention, particularly for underrepresented graduate students and faculty who may opt to move to another state.
Third, regarding post tenure reviews, we echo the sentiments of the AAUP that suggest that post tenure reviews should be handled by faculty, follow due process, reaffirm an institution’s commitment to academic freedom, and be free from bias and applied fairly, and termination should be a last resort after extensive and meaningful professional development has failed (Euben, Reference Euben2006). We also wish to emphasize that although legitimate concerns exist about tenure, tenure is an important protection that ensures both academic freedom and allows universities to hire top talent. The AAUP’s Statement of Principles (1940) outlined that tenure serves two primary goals: “(1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability” (p. 14). That is, tenure helps maintain academic freedom, as well as recruit and retain talented faculty who could (sometimes) make more money in other areas of employment. An inability to attract and retain talented faculty harms students who engage with faculty. It is also worth noting the academic freedoms go both directions—conservatives who are often minorities in higher education are also protected by tenure. Thus, removing tenure harms everyone: faculty, students, and the state’s human capital.
Finally, although Ohio SB1 weakens the power of faculty unions by eliminating the possibility of strikes (a rare occurrence in Ohio), the legislation also reminds us that unionization is one strategy that can help counter state efforts to curtail faculty rights. In other states that have passed similar legislation, implementation details are often left to individual institutions (Gretzinger & Hicks, Reference Gretzinger and Hicks2024). The level of university administrator commitment to the goals of the legislation varies across institutions with some university presidents actively and enthusiastically implementing procedures suggested in these bills, whereas others do the bare minimum to comply. Faculty unionization helps provide an additional layer of protection to faculty who are wary of due process in cases of post tenure review and/or investigations into alleged faculty misconduct in the areas identified in this bill.
Conclusion
Higher education undeniably faces challenges including access, affordability, and perceived return on investment (Baker, Reference Baker2024; Clark et al., Reference Clark, Cluver, Fishman and Kunkel2024; Vargas & Dancy, Reference Vargas and Dancy2023). These are complex problems that require universities to work together with the state and federal governments. Yet, the recent wave of state and federal legislation targeting academic freedom fails to address these core issues. Instead of offering solutions, such policies restrict institutional autonomy and place significant restrictions and pressures on faculty in ways that contradict the values of I-O psychology and higher education more generally.
Open access
